De/Constructing Theory

The purpose of this article is to understand and illustrate how the development of theories is influenced in part through dominant paradigms, in part through citation patterns, and in part through the norms of scientific writing. An example that is developed is the use of deconstruction to illustrate how institutional theory, with its interpretive beginnings, has become a structuralist positivist vehicle. This is examined in the context of the flourishing recent debate in the field of organizational studies with regard to the relevance of this field and the consensus, or lack thereof, that exists within it. After developing the deconstructive reading of a classic article in institutional theory, the author discusses the implications for the field of organizational studies.

[1]  Linda L. Putnam,et al.  The Politics of Emotion: A Feminist Reading of Bounded Rationality , 1992 .

[2]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[3]  P. Berger,et al.  Social Construction of Reality , 1991, The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society.

[4]  R. Evered,et al.  Alternative Perspectives in the Organizational Sciences: “Inquiry from the Inside” and “Inquiry from the Outside” , 1981 .

[5]  L. Smircich,et al.  Voicing Seduction to Silence Leadership , 1991 .

[6]  R. I. Sutton,et al.  Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: a study of drug abuse treatment units. , 1991, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

[7]  W. Scott.  The Adolescence of Institutional Theory. , 1987 .

[8]  R. Gephart.  Deconstructing the defense for quantification in social science: A content analysis of journal articles on the parametric strategy , 1986 .

[9]  Philip Selznick.  TVA and the grass roots , 1949 .

[10]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[11]  R. Daft,et al.  Can Organization Studies Begin to Break Out of the Normal Science Straitjacket? An Editorial Essay , 1990 .

[12]  David P. Hamilton.  Publishing by--and for?--the numbers. , 1990, Science.

[13]  Dennis A. Gioia,et al.  Multiparadigm Perspectives on Theory Building , 1990 .

[14]  L. Smircich,et al.  The Case for Qualitative Research , 1980 .

[15]  L. Zucker.  Institutional Theories of Organization , 1987 .

[16]  David P. Hamilton.  Research papers: who's uncited now? , 1991, Science.

[17]  John W. Meyer,et al.  CENTRALIZATION, FRAGMENTATION, AND SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLEXITY , 1987 .

[18]  T. Kuhn.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[19]  T. R. Davis,et al.  An Idiographic Approach to Organizational Behavior Research: The Use of Single Case Experimental Designs and Direct Measures , 1982 .

[20]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality , 1984 .

[21]  Pamela S. Tolbert,et al.  Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935 , 1983 .

[22]  A. Schutz.  Collected Papers I. The Problem of Social Reality , 1972 .

[23]  Allen S. Lee.  Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Approaches to Organizational Research , 1991 .

[24]  G. Ritzer.  Sociology : A Multiple Paradigm Science , 1975 .

[25]  D. Morgan,et al.  Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. , 1983 .

[26]  Joanne D. Martin.  Deconstructing Organizational Taboos: The Suppression of Gender Conflict in Organizations , 1990 .

[27]  J. Pfeffer.  Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable , 1993 .

[28]  L. Zucker.  The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. , 1977 .

[29]  C. Oliver.  STRATEGIC RESPONSES TO INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES , 1991 .

[30]  B. Agger.  Critical Theory, Poststructuralism, Postmodernism: Their Sociological Relevance , 1991 .